A
Andrew_Graham
Guest
Reply,
Hi,
In John 1:1 is the apostle saying WHAT “the Word” was or WHO “the Word” was?
Regards,
Andrew
- Status
Hi,
In John 1:1 is the apostle saying WHAT “the Word” was or WHO “the Word” was?
Regards,
Andrew
T
tonyrey
Guest
The issue is “Why the Trinity?” to which I have responded with one simple reason you have failed to refute:
If you cannot address the issue you are being unreasonable…
J
jochoa
Guest
Who.
J
jochoa
Guest
I encourage you to further consider Genesis 1:26-27 to recognize one way God shares the plurality of persons within his singular being.
God says, “Let **us **make man in **our **image…” Then God proceeds to make man in **his own **image.
Therefore, God equates his self (his own) with a plurality of persons (us & our).
Thank you very much for sharing the intriguing question! I look forward to further discussion!
A
Andrew_Graham
Guest
Reply,
Hi Tonyrey,
The above is not what it seems, so I will take it for granted that you are familiar with the workings of both Hebrew and Greek!
With respect, Tony, when Trinitarians quote the familiar Gen 1:26, do they really know what is going on, or do they think the English reads as though the same as the Hebrew, if they do, then that is a big mistake!
When the text says “let us make man in our image…” the term “na-asah” (let us make) is used of both Father and Son, both have some involvement in the “let us make” the term “asah” is the Hebrew term for “make” and is used of both parties, but only the term “bara” (create) is used of the Father “…male and female created He them…” the term “bara” is never used of the Son, only the Father, to make something is not the same as to create something!
Another matter that Trinitarians bring up (I’m just pre-empting here) is their use of the term “elohim” (plural of “eloah”) and elohim means “gods”, so to apply the term to God, is to say that when God is elohim, that God is in fact Gods and that is polytheism, so that cannot be used as a Trinitarian proof text, also, in Hebrew, angels and men are called “elohim”, but we would not say (for instance) that in Gabriel there are a number of “gods” or in an Israelite judge, there was more than one “god”!
The semantics of the term “elohim” is being narrowed by trinitarians to the point that, many do not realise what they are saying, when they attempt to use the word “elohim” as a proof text, scholars now realise and admit to, that elohim is to be regarded as an intensive plural, thus denoting greatness, majesty and so on and another small point, that is often missed by lay Trinitarians, is that “elohim” when applied to “God” is invariably used with singular pronouns and construed with singular verbs and this is seen throughout the entire bible, thus allowing for one person in God and not more than one!
In the NT the expression used of the Father, “ek” (from/out of) is never used of the Son in a creative sense, only “di” (a contrction of “dia”) such a preposition as “di” carries the instrumental causal sense and does not carry with it the sense of “Final Cause, Efficient Cause…” in other words, the Father is the original Source, not the Son, the Son is the instrument or the agency for the execution of the will and purpose of the above!
Did you notice Tony, that when you cited:
“God says, “Let us make man in our image…” Then God proceeds to make man in his own image.”
…that the term “God” is used with a singular masculine pronoun “his”, if God was a plurality, then the Genesis account should have read “their”, as in:
“God says, “Let us make man in our image…” Then God proceeds to make man in their own image.”
…but, of course the text doesn’t say that, but the point is, that God is never ever used with any plural pronouns or verbs, only singular, no exceptions!
Kind regards,
Andrew
A
Andrew_Graham
Guest
Hello,
World English Dictionary
apotheosis (əˌpɒθɪˈəʊsɪs)
— n , pl -ses
the elevation of a person to the rank of a god; deification
2.
glorification of a person or thing
3.
a glorified ideal
4.
the best or greatest time or event: the apotheosis of De Niro’s career
[C17: via Late Latin from Greek: deification, from theos god]
e·go·cen·tric
[ee-goh-sen-trik, eg-oh-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things: an egocentric philosophy that ignores social causes.
having little or no regard for interests, beliefs, or attitudes other than one’s own; self-centered: an egocentric person; egocentric demands upon the time and patience of others.
What is going on here Tony, is that you are using theological gobble de gook to make something look important and therefore, carries weight!
Can you imagine the apostles using such techinical terms to the ordinary people they preached to, I don’t think so!
Why don’t you elucidate and tell me how you would explain that to an ordinary person, that Jesus is “apotheosis” and “egocentic”, how would you put that into words that an ordinary person like me would clearly understand, so that technical mumbo jumbo, that goes well over people’s heads can clearly understand, and that in plain English (no direspect intended, Tony)
I know exactly what you mean, but please, tell me what you think it means!
Kind regard,
Andrew
T
tonyrey
Guest
- You underestimate the knowledge and intelligence of members of this forum.
- “Apotheosis” is not even a specifically theological word.
- It is absurd to criticise a person for using “techinical” terms unknown to the Apostles as if the JWs never do so.
- “What is going on here Tony, is that you are using theological gobble de gook to make something look important and therefore, carries weight!” is a breach of the forum rule of courtesy in addition to being an argumentum ad hominem and bringing your sect into disrepute by your antagonistic attitude.
- It is yet another evasion of the issue to ask the meaning of a sentence when you know exactly what it means and understand the implications of existing solely for oneself in “splendid isolation” for all eternity.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The fatal flaw in your exegesis is that only Fundamentalists regard Genesis as if it is literally true and incompatible with science rather than an allegorical account of Creation.
T
tonyrey
Guest
O
oldburkes
Guest
Once we have successfully “thrown a rope around” the very essence of our God, and pulled it to earth, branding it with a big “H” for human, will we stand around and marvel at our ability to define anything and everything?
Or will we find that we have only scratched the surface of a mystery that becomes more elusive with every attempt to explain it, and that we have become woefully disappointed and empty for having tried?
Or will we find that we have only scratched the surface of a mystery that becomes more elusive with every attempt to explain it, and that we have become woefully disappointed and empty for having tried?
J
jochoa
Guest
Hello Andrew, just to be clear, I, jochoa, was the one to share the reflections.
I am not very familiar with the workings of both Hebrew and Greek. Thank you for sharing further insight!
Even when I consider your understandings, I still perceive: God says, “Let us make in our image,” then God creates in his image. God is still sharing a plurality of persons within a singular person.
I definitely noticed that “God” is used with a singular masculine pronoun in v.27, which is definitely one reason why I know God is a singularity. However, did you recognize that “God” is used with plural pronouns “us” and “our” in v.26? If God was solely a singularity, then the Genesis account should have read “me” and “my.”
When I share God is the Holy Trinity, I know what I mean. I would appreciate you sharing any logical contradictions you may perceive.
The Holy Trinity: God is necessarily three distinct persons that are each fully God.
This means no matter what (eternally good) or who you say God is, God will be three distinct persons that are fully what or who you declare God to be.
As an example, the Bible knows God is Love. Therefore:
The first person is the person who is always Love.
The second person is the person who is always Love by being begotten/born/generated/cloned from the first person.
The third person is the person who is always Love by sacrificing being always Love in order to demonstrate the process of becoming always Love to others.
Therefore, each distinct person cannot physically be one another, yet each person is still fully God=Love. With further analysis, one can see how each person is also within one another. For example, there is a time when the second person is perceived, by others, to not be always Love, demonstrating the way to becoming always Love to others. Therefore, the third person is in the second person. And hopefully it is easy enough to see how the first person is in the second person because the second person is the person who is always Love.
Thanks for your time, consideration, and sharing your knowledge! I look forward to more discussion!
A
annem
Guest
Andrew Graham
The classic answers from Jewish scholars have been, among others: that God is speaking to the royal court in heaven, that God is asking for assent from the entire of creation, and getting it (I have always found this a charming explanation, since it means all the other animals agreed to our presence), and, also, frequently, that God is speaking in royal power, as a king might announce a new law saying, 'we find it good to…".
However, even if you do find an explanation other than the Trinity, it won’t convince any Catholic that the Trinity wasn’t meant as well.
Catholics, as with the early Second Temple Jews, believed oral tradition to be as binding as scripture. Paul in his epistles claimed to be passing on tradition - paradosis and paradidonai - that was inerrant and binding. Here is Josephus on the subject of oral tradition:
Josephus Antiquities (297) …What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses.
Philo also wrote about oral tradition, but I don’t have time to look up the quote now.
So it is tradition as well as scripture that teaches us about the Trinity. So pouncing on one point in scripture is really not proof of anything, at least from a Catholic perspective.
Nor are we surprised to find multiple meaning in pretty much every word of scripture. The earliest Catholics insisted on multiple fulfillment s for prophecies, and also insisted that the Old Testament proved the truth of Jesus through typology. Today, it is standard to use the four senses of scripture to interpret scripture.
May God fill you with light, and laughter, and miracles, Annem
Dear Andrew, The problem with your explanation is that Hebrew scholars have been trying to explain away the ‘us’ for generations. Centuries upon centuries. So it’s pretty strange if, as you claim, it’s all a mistake.
The classic answers from Jewish scholars have been, among others: that God is speaking to the royal court in heaven, that God is asking for assent from the entire of creation, and getting it (I have always found this a charming explanation, since it means all the other animals agreed to our presence), and, also, frequently, that God is speaking in royal power, as a king might announce a new law saying, 'we find it good to…".
However, even if you do find an explanation other than the Trinity, it won’t convince any Catholic that the Trinity wasn’t meant as well.
Catholics, as with the early Second Temple Jews, believed oral tradition to be as binding as scripture. Paul in his epistles claimed to be passing on tradition - paradosis and paradidonai - that was inerrant and binding. Here is Josephus on the subject of oral tradition:
Josephus Antiquities (297) …What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses.
Philo also wrote about oral tradition, but I don’t have time to look up the quote now.
So it is tradition as well as scripture that teaches us about the Trinity. So pouncing on one point in scripture is really not proof of anything, at least from a Catholic perspective.
Nor are we surprised to find multiple meaning in pretty much every word of scripture. The earliest Catholics insisted on multiple fulfillment s for prophecies, and also insisted that the Old Testament proved the truth of Jesus through typology. Today, it is standard to use the four senses of scripture to interpret scripture.
May God fill you with light, and laughter, and miracles, Annem
T
tonyrey
Guest
Perfect love implies unity **and **diversity…
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Indeed. True love isn’t closed in on itself.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Unitarianism: a simplistic exaltation of egoism. One eternal person = Hell
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Today’s the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, for those of you who didn’t know. 
- Status